3 ms·

Copyright does not mean the right to make copies. It means the right to benefit from the value of making copies. It doesn't matter if those copies are made by

Copyright does not mean the right to make copies. It means the right to benefit from the value of making copies. It doesn't matter if those copies are made by pushing bits over the Internet or hewn into the side of a mountain by thousands of masons. It's an access and use right, not a physical instantiation. Copyleft, open source, CC-by-N etc don't change this or subvert the concept. They're simply ways of asserting that the benefit should be collective instead of individual. This makes perfect sense for group efforts, but no sense at all for content creators who would derive no benefit at all if copyright didn't exist. Either you believe in property and access/benefit rights or you don't. You can't believe in them selectively just because you want something and are terribly offended if you're asked to pay for it. And if you don't believe in property rights - fine. Let's make everything collectively owned, including money. (Which is in fact just bits that can be pushed over the Internet.)

JellyBeanThief 3y ago
> Either you believe in property and access/benefit rights or you don't. Information isn't property. Property is a concept we use to maintain order and peace around scarce resources. Information is not scarce anymore and never will be again, and applying notions of property to it has always been a misuse. If you want to encourage the arts, then shorten the work week. People don't need to be incentivized to create art. You couldn't stop them if you tried. And we have more movies, music, books, television, photos, etc than anyone could ever hope to enjoy even in 10 lifetimes. If you want to encourage basic research, give money to scientists and then get out of their way. People don't need to be incentivized to investigate the universe. You couldn't stop them if you tried. If you want to encourage innovation, then make source code and blueprints for commercial products open source by law. People don't need to be incentivized to learn about and improve the tools they own. You couldn't stop them if you tried. And artists wouldn't stop making money. Commissions don't depend on copyright. Neither do thank yous and more elaborate call outs to patrons. As long as an artist can make a decent living at some other job, they'll make art in the time left over that any would-be greatest free country in the world makes sure all its citizens have to actually be free in. Assuming we want the world's best research by the world's best researchers for the public good, then we need to pay for their equipment, supplies, and workspace. And then when we want the worlds best trained graduates, we pay the researchers to teach them. And as for innovation, that's not really something we need to incentivize at least right now. We have more technology available then we can keep up with. We don't need dishwashers with Bluetooth, we need dishwashers that you can pay the neighbor's kid 50 bucks under the table to repair, and you'll only be one of four people who paid them this week. Not to mention the gigantic leg up it will give to developing countries struggling to bootstrap their industries. If you want to play around with patent law for businesses above a certain size (either by revenue, customer base, employee count, or whatever), then I think there's plenty we can do there to challenge big businesses to stay ahead of the curve while making sure small and maybe medium businesses keep nipping at their heels. But at the end of the day, information is not scarce. So let's stop pretending that we need to manage it like it is.

JellyBeanThief 3y ago

> Either you believe in property and access/benefit rights or you don't. Information isn't property. Property is a concept we use to maintain order and peace around scarce resources. Information is not scarce anymore and never will be again, and applying notions of property to it has always been a misuse. If you want to encourage the arts, then shorten the work week. People don't need to be incentivized to create art. You couldn't stop them if you tried. And we have more movies, music, books, television, photos, etc than anyone could ever hope to enjoy even in 10 lifetimes. If you want to encourage basic research, give money to scientists and then get out of their way. People don't need to be incentivized to investigate the universe. You couldn't stop them if you tried. If you want to encourage innovation, then make source code and blueprints for commercial products open source by law. People don't need to be incentivized to learn about and improve the tools they own. You couldn't stop them if you tried. And artists wouldn't stop making money. Commissions don't depend on copyright. Neither do thank yous and more elaborate call outs to patrons. As long as an artist can make a decent living at some other job, they'll make art in the time left over that any would-be greatest free country in the world makes sure all its citizens have to actually be free in. Assuming we want the world's best research by the world's best researchers for the public good, then we need to pay for their equipment, supplies, and workspace. And then when we want the worlds best trained graduates, we pay the researchers to teach them. And as for innovation, that's not really something we need to incentivize at least right now. We have more technology available then we can keep up with. We don't need dishwashers with Bluetooth, we need dishwashers that you can pay the neighbor's kid 50 bucks under the table to repair, and you'll only be one of four people who paid them this week. Not to mention the gigantic leg up it will give to developing countries struggling to bootstrap their industries. If you want to play around with patent law for businesses above a certain size (either by revenue, customer base, employee count, or whatever), then I think there's plenty we can do there to challenge big businesses to stay ahead of the curve while making sure small and maybe medium businesses keep nipping at their heels. But at the end of the day, information is not scarce. So let's stop pretending that we need to manage it like it is.